Thread by @tribunaltweets

Part Two of Morning Session Thursday 29 January in Toshack vs GeoAmey
See tweet thread below for background, abbreviations etc.
threadreaderapp.com/thread/2016800…

We return.
MM - I want to turn now to why you applied to GA for a job
DT - I thought it would be interesting and challenging job, seeing what when on in the courts.
MM - we've heard about your strong beliefs on sex and gender, given your strong views, did you give any thought

to having to deal with trans prisoners
DT - didn't really cross my mind, didn't give it much consideration
MM - but you have these strong beliefs
DT - I didn't give it a lot of thought, no
MM - <turning to contract> effective from 25 nov 2024, that's when you started

DT - yes
MM - signature box, dated and signed on 8 oct 2024, a good while before you started
DT - yes
MM - policies, employees must comply with policies and procedures, even it contractual, offers links to policies, did you try and get hold of these before starting
DT - no

MM - <module notebook> ; we see IND point 8, E&D on 25 Nov, week one
DT - day one
MM - who gave that session
DT - CH, Chris Hutton
MM - called 'acting inclusively' in GA, have you heard that
DT - probably have but don't remember if it was that day

MM - <slide deck of that session> you referred to death by powerpoint, but can you recall these slides,
DT - don't recall them specifically
MM - you said that people were a wee bit shy in speaking out about concerns, you were first to speak out
DT - yes

MM - <explains that he will go over ground from yesterday but also put things his witnesses will say, DT can agree, disagree or have no recollection>
DT - understood
MM - CH says that you brought up your religion
DT - I don't remember that
MM - says you did and that sent the

group off on a tangent but also recalls that you speaking up got everyone to start talking.
DT - I don't remember that
MM - he reiterated GA policy on treating everyone as they wish to be treated
DT - I don't recall that but he may have said it
MM - no alarm bells ringing for

you in that session
DT - it was a general discussion, not about specific policies,
MM - what did you say
DT - refers to y'day: diversity was a way of forcing conformity, and those who disagree are excluded
MM - nothing about refusal to use pp (preferred pronouns)

DT - no don't recall it came up
MM - two discussions about Tiffany Scott, tried to bite off own testicle
DT - he tried to cut off his own testicles
MM - yes, but first time he used female pronouns, and then in subsequent conversations used male pronouns
DT - yes

MM - he's going to be adamant that neither of these convos were with him, are you sure
DT - I'm absolutely positive it was CH
MM - it wasn't another trainer
DT - no
MM - what was the context
DT - sharing experiences about handling difficult prisoners, not just trans

MM - so about challenging situations not specifically about trans
DT - that one was about Tiffany Scott so about a trans prisoner
MM - now session with PH, no problem with your training up to that point, you haven't expressed objections to trans pronouns at this point

DT - I'm sure that must have come up beforehand,
MM - you didn't raise that yesterday, now you're saying that it must have come up, what are you saying
DT - I think it must have come up, but i cannot recall it specifically
MM - on 7 Jan SH was delivering 'safer custody' slides

<reviewing slide deck>
MM - a leaflet given to females in custody, SH was talking about, says includes transgender women, do you see that
DT - yes
MM - she said had to be given to all women including TW
DT - I don't remember her saying that, but she may well have

MM - and prisoner had to confirm that they understand the leaflet, and read it to them if not
DT - I don't remember what specifically the order was
MM - did you say that you said you would not follow this policy and provide the leaflet
DT - I did not say that

MM - she's adamant that you did and that was what began the discussion that resulted in your dismissal
DT - her recollection may be better than mine, because it was the one module she taught
MM - she said that you reacted in an aggressive manner, and said that you would not be

searching a transgender prisoner.
DT - I do not recall saying that
MM - saying you don't remember is different from saying you didn't say it, which is it
DT - I responded to a hypothetical situation, saying I would search, so why would I find something else.

MM - but you may have said something different, because you were in a meeting room facing dismissal
DT - I was not trying to back track in the meeting room.
MM - SH said that you said you would not use pronouns on the PER or use their chosen names
DT - I would dispute that.

MM - that's not what the note said. But we'll come to that. Now become an exchange between you and her.
DT - In general it was between me and her, but I do recall a couple of people chipping in
MM - I put it to you that you said you wouldn't search at trans prisoners

use name or preferred pronouns,
DT - I dispute that
MM - she reminded you of GeoAmey policies and that you had to adhere to them
DT - she said something like that.
MM - did you not say you would not comply with policies if you didn't agree with them
DT - I didn't say that

MM - did you say that you would treat male prisoners as men, how sure are you
DT - to remember a single sentence from 12 months ago, I can't be absolutely sure, but it's the best of my recollection
MM - she says you didn't mention religion or other beliefs is that correct

DT - i don't remember mentioning religion or beliefs
MM - now looking a policy on trans nb people in our care, date indicates in force, definition of trans person, GRCs, not required, can adopt appropriate name, must make every effort to communicate using name and pronouns

and trans person be searched in line with affirmed gender,
DT - yes, confirming
MM - ensure the rights of trans people (TP) are protected, reads out additional requirements, do you see that
DT - yes
MM - risks associated with this, including legal challenge

DT - yes
MM - this wasn't present in the session, but SH said that rules and SOPs must be respected, do you remember her saying that
DT - I don't remember her saying that, she may have referred to policies,
MM - she says you were very forceful and intimidating in this encounter

can you comment on that
DT - I absolutely disagree with that. Makes no sense to me, why would she take me from a room in front of 20 people, out to an enclosed space if I had intimidated her and she thought i was aggressive.
MM - she said you raised your voice.

DT - I absolutely disagree
MM - but you said you were quite passionate about it, she also said that you were using hand gestures and she found it aggressive
DT - i was speaking normally and I have been using hand gestures during my evidence
MM - can you understand that she may

felt intimidated
DT - It makes no sense that she would invite me to an enclosed space alone to discuss if she felt intimidated
MM - she said she invited you to leave the room, because everyone else was feeling uncomfortable,
DT - these comments only came afterwards they were

not put to me in the hallway, in the subsequent meeting
MM - she's also going to say that you said you would not give a prisoner food, water or access to a toilet unless you thought it was necessary and that when told these were basic human rights, you said you wouldn't do it.

And that you wouldn't search a trans prisoner and wouldn't use pronouns on PER.
DT - I said none of that.
MM - discussion of PER form and procedures,
DT - I can't recall exactly what the procedures were
MM - form has boxes for names, etc. It says use affirmed name and

affirmed pronouns. You won't use affirmed pronouns. Boxes for M & F; would you tick the box for M or F if you had a transwoman.
DT - I don't remember what the instructions were on preparation of the form.
MM - you would tick the male box, that's what your beliefs would lead

you to do.
DT - yes
MM - and a TP could see this form, that will be CH's evidence
DT - I'm not sure
MM - using neutral pronouns will not get you around the check on the box
DT - I'm following reality and the truth
MM - it would cause you to completely depart from policy

what you call reality and truth that is.
DT - I'm not sure how that would have happened, I don't recall what was said,
MM - policy says used affirmed pronouns
DT - that's not what is happening here,
MM - you are dancing on the head of a pin

DT - what are you saying
MM - you think pronouns are a lie
DT - I would tick the box for the biological sex
MM - in contradiction to the policy
MM - in terms of you leaving the room, she asked and you agreed
DT - she asked and I agreed

MM - do you agree that the convo had gotten out of control
DT - I thought it was that she wasn't open to having the discussion
MM - so you thought that she didn't like being challenged, maybe she didn't want you to be challenging policies in the training room.
DT - not from my

perspective
MM - she came out of the room, she said that your tone and demeanour were escalating
DT - I don't know what she means by escalating, we continued the discussion
MM - she says you constantly interrupted her, cut her off
DT - I did not

MM - she said you were getting more and more charged, more and more aggressive
DT - none of that was brought up until well after.
MM - if you weren't doing anything wrong why did you leave the room.
DT - well what I was supposed to do? It would have incredibly belligerent

of me to refuse to leave the room.
MM - she told you to go the canteen and get a cup of tea.
DT - she told me to go to the canteen and I did
MM - SH said that she returned to the room to hear comments like 'its about time that happened, he's been a nightmare the whole time

this is not the line of work for him'.
DT - I do not believe that. I had not been a nightmare.
MM - Now on to the bundle, did you get a copy of the bundle to prepare for the hearing,
DT - I don't think so,
MM - specifically about the note of the meeting

reading out parts of the meeting note, do you remember saying when I person is obviously male, can't refer to them as female,
DT - I would have said something along those lines that I would not refer to them as the opposite sex
MM - if a TP has a GRC we have to treat them as

that sex, you said you would not lie
DT - something along those line
MM - if you call a male person female, are you not just following the policy, not telling a lie, just following a policy
DT - if you refer to a man as woman, that is telling a lie

MM - that's what you believe
DT - that's the truth
MM - CH said that TP have rights and you referred to your gender critical beliefs are protected as well, art 10
DT - yes, that the law that I understand protects GC beliefs
MM -can you remember what he said about the PER doc

DT - what I recall, is that he was saying you had to use pronouns, and I said I would use non-gendered language,
MM - you said you wouldn't call a man a woman
DT - yes
MM - CH says he understands your beliefs and you said you wouldn't comply and he said you couldn't be a PCO.

DT - I said to him that he didn't believe it either.
MM - he acknowledged your right to have those beliefs, but that you needed to follow policy. But isn't it mistreatment to not refer to TW as she/her.
DT - no, I said I would use their name to not be disrespectful,

MM - CH offered different examples of how neutral terms can be confusing do you remember that
DT - the explanation I remember is that it would take too much time
MM - do you remember the search questions, you said you were willing to search, the whole GA policy is to recognise

identity and you said you wouldn't do that.
DT - i said that I would search anyone regardless of their sex, and I wouldn't be disrespectful.
MM - you seem to incapable of understanding that it is disrespectful to not affirm their gender
DT - My refusal to recognise their

gender is not disrespectful.
MM - <missed section of tex>
DT - I don't know what that means
MM - he says that you can have strong views but still need to follow the policy, its a lie that a person born male is treated as a female.
DT - that is a lie

MM - he's not asking you to lie, he's asking you to follow company policy
DT - I'm not aware that it's against the law to misgender someone in Scotland
MM - the policy says must respect identity
DT - I was prepared to use their name but not pronouns

MM - when use the word 'the name' the note doesn't specify birth name or affirmed name,
DT - I can remember saying to him, 100% that if a man wanted to call him Susan or Shirley, I would do that.
MM - it's not in the note, but we can ask him next week.

MM - but surely calling Steven Susan you are treating them as a woman, that goes against everything you have been saying for two days
DT - no I'm not, people can have any given name they want.
MM - is this document a fairly accurate and complete record of this discussion

DT - there are things that they have chosen not to record
MM - they may have omitted them in error
DT - as example, the point on names above,
MM - <letter of 14 Jan from CH> refusal to fully comply with GA policies, the comments made by you in relation to TP in our care,

do you see that
DT - yes
MM - and on that basis you were deemed to have failed your probation
DT - in my dismissal meeting they said it was because of my strong beliefs
MM - we were just speaking about the completeness of the meeting note, you did not say that the terms

'strong beliefs' were omitted.
DT - I cannot remember everything at all times
MM - I gave you the opportunity to tell me what was omitted and you did not mention strong beliefs
DH - <interjection, unclear>
DT - I said it yesterday more than once,
J - yes you did

MM - now discussing various other members of the training cohort who may share DT's beliefs, Were you singled out for dismissal, what was the real reason you were dismissed
DT - the real reason, i would not lie and use the incorrect pronouns for biological men, and women

MM - your appeal letter, largely drafted for you but you agree with it's content
DT - yes
MM - para that discusses convos about views, I was not told that my beliefs were incompatible with GA employment, but you had not said that you wouldn't follow a policy.

DT - I had made my views clear.
MM - at no stage until 7 Jan you had not said you would not follow policy
DT - could you rephrase that
MM - 7 Jan was the first time you told a GA trainer you wouldn't follow a policy
DT - it definitely came up before

MM - reads out para quickly
DT - I did say that I would have problems
MM - you did not mention at an earlier stage, it was not in your evidence yesterday,
DT - but it's in the letter from 23 January 2025, my recollection would have been better then than now

MM - but you didn't write the letter
DT - I didn't type it out but it's the information I provided
MM - <recounts history>,
DT - from what I recall, I made my views clear, no one had a problem with my views,
MM - <training log> we don't see any trace in any of the docs

that you have identified that you will not follow policy, I think it's an indicator that you never said it.
DT - that's not true. It's not in there because it was not flagged as an issue.
MM - you were told that you can hold your views, but need to follow policy

DT - it was not flagged on an issue
MM - you were up against the granite of GA policies, why didn't you raise as an issue
DT - if it's such a big deal, why was it not flagged earlier
MM - the reality is that all you had talked about until Jan was your views

DT - and my views were about the use of pronouns.
MM - you were paid for the month of January that was more you were entitled to,
DT - not sure what I was entitled to
MM - per contract, one weeks written notice
>>
MM - grounds says decision to dismiss was a disproportionate

reaction to my beliefs,
DT - there was a compromise and work arounds that we could have come to,
MM - where do I see reference to these work arounds in this appeal document
DT - I don't know if its in the appeal doc, but it came up in the dismissal meeting

MM - CH explains why these wouldn't work, in relation to the PER form,
DT - he said the time it would take, this did not seem genuine to me
MM - you say you wouldn't discriminate or harass TP, isn't refusal to use pronouns that

DT - using their chosen name is not disrespectful and not misgendering.
MM - you declined an appeal meeting,
DT - I didn't want another face to face meeting, given how the last one had gone
>>
MM - reads out from documents, SH presented slide that said TP are distressed by

failure to affirm, you said you wouldn't be searching a transgender person, and that you wouldn't identify a TP as he or she in PER document
DT - I said I would use their name or non-gendered language
MM - you were not dismissed for your beliefs, but refusal to follow policy

MM - I'm done with this topic, I have another hour or so. We're doing well on time.
J - do we have another witness for today,
DH - we don't have another witness tee'd up for today, but definitely tomorrow morning.
J - we will adjourn now until 1:55 pm.
Court rises.

End of morning session part 2.

@threadreaderapp unroll please.